Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Alabama

Flores v. Noem

Northern District of AlabamaNicholas A DanellaDecided June 26, 2026No. 2:25-cv-00884

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency USCIS Read by a model
Plaintiffs also allege that USCIS unreasonably delayed implementing the regulations for the BFD process and continues to unreasonably delay administering the entire U Visa petition process.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Martinez Flores filed a Form I-198 petition for a U Visa on June 24, 2019, and her petition has been pending for almost 7 years.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs also request immediate adjudication of their petitions for U Visas.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 25) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
On January 30, 2026, Defendants filed this motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On January 30, 2026, Defendants filed this motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 25) is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 25) is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
As a result, the court must dismiss the complaint because Plaintiffs lack standing and this court lacks jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
As a result, the court must dismiss the complaint because Plaintiffs lack standing and this court lacks jurisdiction.
Months pending 71.5 months from the application to the suit; 84.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Martinez Flores filed a Form I-198 petition for a U Visa on June 24, 2019, and her petition has been pending for almost 7 years.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted; Visa availability accepted Read by a model
And, by regulation (and policy), USCIS processes the petitions for U Visas in the order that they were received.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Final decision: dismissed; Other U visa claim: dismissed; Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model
As a result, the court must dismiss the complaint because Plaintiffs lack standing and this court lacks jurisdiction.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiffs Martinez Flores and Baldovinos are citizens of Mexico who have been residing in the United States since 1996.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-00884
Filed
June 9, 2025
Ended
June 26, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
382 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-06-26 for the defendants, ground not stated; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.